Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Collaboration of the month

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WPVG icon 2016.svg WikiProject
Video games
Main page talk
Manual of style
Article guidelines talk
Sources talk
  Search engine
Wikidata Guide
Reference library talk
  Print archive
  Web archive
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
Article alerts
Deletion discussions
Essential articles
New articles
Recognized content
  Good article Good content
  Featured article Featured content
Requested articles talk


Current article does not appear to be high-importance[edit]

Joust (video game) doesn't seem to meet any of the importance ratings for high video game and I doubt it's even mid as it's entire legacy is based on ports or remakes of the game itself, which qualifies for low-importance (a game is always assumed to have some legacy when it spawns ports/remakes and sequels. The "In Popular Culture" section is trivial information.じんない 03:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure it doesn't set any precedents? The article doesn't mention any, and every old game isn't automatically of higher importance. Unless importance is found, it should be rerolled.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Here's the edit that reassessed the article FYI. Gary King (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I rated it before the assessment system changed, I would say it's more of a mid-importance now. --Mika1h (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I re-rated to Mid since the original assessor also agrees. I still think it may not be even mid given what info, but I'll give a benefit of the doubt before lowering it to low.じんない 22:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the process is stuck between a rock and a hard place. If we're going to tackle high-importance articles, which are invariably more difficult to source and complicated, then enough time has to be given to actually do that. If articles are only given a week, then regardless of anything else they must be easy to edit up a grade or two, which invariably means something low or mid importance. Case in point: it's now 3 or 4 days since this convo started, the collaboration has been active at least as long, and all that's happened is a trivia section and fair-use gallery have been nuked and the poster's been uploaded. Which is all good and appreciated, but it's not the most enthusiastic response. We still haven't decided whether this is an appropriate article or not and the collab.'s due to switch in a few days. We really need to sort out what the priorities are with this system. Someoneanother 15:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There is really no point in re-rolling. If we don't like the choice, deal with it. I didn't do any more editing because I wasn't sure what people were going to decide, but what's the point? It's only a week. People wanted to re-roll last week, and that turned out to be really awesome. We should re-roll if the article is Xanadu or something, but if we can improve it let's keep it. If you're worried about the selections, go through the High and Top categories beforehand. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, let's not keep changing things. I think it's pretty good how the collaboration is setup right now. There will be articles that you some won't like, but others will. Gary King (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

A franchise whose article is in bad state[edit]

I checked the article Tekken recently and it's currently in a bad state. Various paragraphs are unsourced, there is no reception and there is a whole table of characters from each game. Considering how famous is such franchise, I wondered if this article could be part from a following collaboration. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Related discussion[edit]

Please see WT:VG#Collaboration of the month. I am no longer watching this page—whisperback if you'd like a response czar  01:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)